I have a question.
During the trials of Nazi War criminals it was clear that Britain and the US did not accept the defence that the criminals were simply following orders. This implies that when a government asks its people to carry out immoral acts, those so instructed have a moral duty to resist the orders. My question then is how immoral should an act be, before it requires exposure? Anyone for example who has followed TV documentary of Oliver Stone’s Untold history of the USA would realise that many extremely immoral acts were carried out by the United States in the post second world war years, with disastrous consequences for many foreign states, and had they been exposed by whistle blowers at the time, it seems likely that the US public would have refused to sanction what their politicians had been hiding.
When Edward Snowden releases information about clear threats to freedom (ostensibly supported by the US public) would someone please explain exactly what his crime has been. Is it any more than damage to a false self image?